Oldsmobile's 350cid "diesel-like" V8 used in many full-sized GM cars in the late '70's early '80's.
Worst Engines
- Thread starter gedcruise
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Drew2000
Oldsmobile's 350cid "diesel-like" V8 used in many full-sized GM cars in the late '70's early '80's.
yeah,they were mentioned already.
Oldsmobile's 350cid "diesel-like" V8 used in many full-sized GM cars in the late '70's early '80's.
yeah,they were mentioned already.
Any engine that's had notorious head gasket problems (or any other major gasket problems). This includes some modern engines too.
Some of the unfortunate mentions in this thread only have an "Achilles heel", but are otherwise good engines, and I would rank the [head] gasket eaters as much worse because it's an unpredictable failure brought on by poor fundamental design.
Some of the unfortunate mentions in this thread only have an "Achilles heel", but are otherwise good engines, and I would rank the [head] gasket eaters as much worse because it's an unpredictable failure brought on by poor fundamental design.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
The Iron Duke wasn't a bad engine. It was just noisy and slow, but it was very reliable....
my second car was a 1980 Chevy Monza a real striped car,no a/c from the factory,4 spd.transmission, Saginaw [censored]. But,that car was fast! I could even feel the two barrel carb kick in when I floored it!
The Iron Duke wasn't a bad engine. It was just noisy and slow, but it was very reliable....
my second car was a 1980 Chevy Monza a real striped car,no a/c from the factory,4 spd.transmission, Saginaw [censored]. But,that car was fast! I could even feel the two barrel carb kick in when I floored it!
The Iron Duke in my first car died when it blew its headgasket one cold winter morning as I was racing off to school. That was the final straw for me. I ended up with a 1999 Hyundai Elantra that night. I still miss that Elantra, and its Beta 4-cylinder that loved to munch throttle position sensors.
I had a 1988 Olds with the "Iron Duke". Got 28 mpg and everyone that drove it thought it was a 6 cyl because it had a lot of power. Never used oil, but it was noisy. Kept it 6 years and 90k miles no problems. I guess I was lucky.
Originally Posted By: grampi
Chrysler 2.7 liter gets my vote. Pure junk!
Was a great engine... Was the breathing system and the temperature at which they ran them at.
Later 2.7's were fine...
Chrysler 2.7 liter gets my vote. Pure junk!
Was a great engine... Was the breathing system and the temperature at which they ran them at.
Later 2.7's were fine...
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: grampi
Chrysler 2.7 liter gets my vote. Pure junk!
Was a great engine... Was the breathing system and the temperature at which they ran them at.
Later 2.7's were fine...
From hearsay obtained here, I won't dispute the last part, but as for the first, how can you parse out the CCV and the programmed-in operating temps? Those are integral parts of the engine as a whole. If your engine sludges up or just blows up, will you be consoled by the fact that other than running too hot, it was a "good" engine?
Originally Posted By: grampi
Chrysler 2.7 liter gets my vote. Pure junk!
Was a great engine... Was the breathing system and the temperature at which they ran them at.
Later 2.7's were fine...
From hearsay obtained here, I won't dispute the last part, but as for the first, how can you parse out the CCV and the programmed-in operating temps? Those are integral parts of the engine as a whole. If your engine sludges up or just blows up, will you be consoled by the fact that other than running too hot, it was a "good" engine?
It seems like most of the Mitsubishi/Chrysler engines of that era end up exhaling blue. My '89 grand voyager with the 3.0 needed valve guide seals before 60k. That was in '91. It didn't get them until almost 180k though.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Let's not forget the evil brother of the Ford Modular: The Chrysler 4.7L. It's like the Modular, except prone to killing itself via a sludge-induced death by oil starvation.
And the best part about this kind of death, is just like a head gasket, there's no real clue it's going to happen, especially if the manufacturer hides the clues to the impending doom via baffle revisions, which I've just learned is the case with Chrysler, via the thread about the sludge-ridden 4.7L in the PCMO section.
And the best part about this kind of death, is just like a head gasket, there's no real clue it's going to happen, especially if the manufacturer hides the clues to the impending doom via baffle revisions, which I've just learned is the case with Chrysler, via the thread about the sludge-ridden 4.7L in the PCMO section.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I had a Ford 2.9, that sure was an oil burning, coolant using pile. When I finally pulled the intake I ended up pulling the heads as the headgaskets were leaking too and found a bad piston. That was a 80,000 miles in Bronco II.
Actually, the 2.8 was the fore-runner of the 2.9. THAT POS had a carb and Ford's awesome thick film ignition module. Absolute pig on the road, TFI would die without warning, starter would also die without warning. My Bronco II spent more time on a tow rope than a professional water skiier. At 80k I traded it off. Saw it about two weeks later. The new owner was waiting for a red light when the distributor cap exploded.
I tried not to gloat...
I had a Ford 2.9, that sure was an oil burning, coolant using pile. When I finally pulled the intake I ended up pulling the heads as the headgaskets were leaking too and found a bad piston. That was a 80,000 miles in Bronco II.
Actually, the 2.8 was the fore-runner of the 2.9. THAT POS had a carb and Ford's awesome thick film ignition module. Absolute pig on the road, TFI would die without warning, starter would also die without warning. My Bronco II spent more time on a tow rope than a professional water skiier. At 80k I traded it off. Saw it about two weeks later. The new owner was waiting for a red light when the distributor cap exploded.
I tried not to gloat...
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: grampi
Chrysler 2.7 liter gets my vote. Pure junk!
Was a great engine... Was the breathing system and the temperature at which they ran them at.
Later 2.7's were fine...
I don't know about all that stuff, but I bought our '98 Intrepid brand new. I changed the oil and filter religously every 3K miles, and by the time the car had 60K miles on it, it was burning a qt of oil every 500 miles. To me, that engine qualifies as a POS!
Originally Posted By: grampi
Chrysler 2.7 liter gets my vote. Pure junk!
Was a great engine... Was the breathing system and the temperature at which they ran them at.
Later 2.7's were fine...
I don't know about all that stuff, but I bought our '98 Intrepid brand new. I changed the oil and filter religously every 3K miles, and by the time the car had 60K miles on it, it was burning a qt of oil every 500 miles. To me, that engine qualifies as a POS!
Because of the breathing problems Chyrsler engines had around this time coinciding with their hotter engine temperature settings... It was a disaster for oil which just couldn't take the abuse.
Not just Chrysler suffered this fate Audi, Toyota and few others did as well.
If you want to blame anyone blame the EPA for demanding stricter emission controls.
Not just Chrysler suffered this fate Audi, Toyota and few others did as well.
If you want to blame anyone blame the EPA for demanding stricter emission controls.
Originally Posted By: jcwit
The worst engine I ever has was the one Opel put in the Opel GT. Carb issues up the ying-yang. Worked and worked to try to fix it, finally did with a new Corvette.
Why drive the make belive when I could buy the real thing.
jcwit,
I had an 1974 Opel station wagon I bought new from the local Buick dealer. I broke it in according to the owners manual for the first 1k miles and changed the oil regularly. Mileage during the fake "energy crisis" was unremarkable and it burned oil like crazy.
Trips with the Opel included winter skiing up in Michigan and a ski excursion out to Colorado. It was a regular commuter car with a 30+ mile round trip.
I traded it in for a new 1978 Buick Century wagon (V6). The Century was an excellent car that I eventually and sold to a friend after 120+k miles.
These two Buicks were as different as night and day.
The worst engine I ever has was the one Opel put in the Opel GT. Carb issues up the ying-yang. Worked and worked to try to fix it, finally did with a new Corvette.
Why drive the make belive when I could buy the real thing.
jcwit,
I had an 1974 Opel station wagon I bought new from the local Buick dealer. I broke it in according to the owners manual for the first 1k miles and changed the oil regularly. Mileage during the fake "energy crisis" was unremarkable and it burned oil like crazy.
Trips with the Opel included winter skiing up in Michigan and a ski excursion out to Colorado. It was a regular commuter car with a 30+ mile round trip.
I traded it in for a new 1978 Buick Century wagon (V6). The Century was an excellent car that I eventually and sold to a friend after 120+k miles.
These two Buicks were as different as night and day.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Because of the breathing problems Chyrsler engines had around this time coinciding with their hotter engine temperature settings... It was a disaster for oil which just couldn't take the abuse.
Not just Chrysler suffered this fate Audi, Toyota and few others did as well.
If you want to blame anyone blame the EPA for demanding stricter emission controls.
Not the EPA's fault that a few manufacturers cheaped out on their durability testing. Today's engines, as clean as they are, are the most powerful for their size, and more fuel efficient than anything we had in the old days of no emission controls.
Because of the breathing problems Chyrsler engines had around this time coinciding with their hotter engine temperature settings... It was a disaster for oil which just couldn't take the abuse.
Not just Chrysler suffered this fate Audi, Toyota and few others did as well.
If you want to blame anyone blame the EPA for demanding stricter emission controls.
Not the EPA's fault that a few manufacturers cheaped out on their durability testing. Today's engines, as clean as they are, are the most powerful for their size, and more fuel efficient than anything we had in the old days of no emission controls.
If the EPA kept their nose out of things we wouldn't have hotter running engines and stupid PCV's which do nothing more than contribute to maintenance costs and engine deterioration.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
If the EPA kept their nose out of things we wouldn't have hotter running engines and stupid PCV's which do nothing more than contribute to maintenance costs and engine deterioration.
Stevie,you wouldnt want to go back to those road draft tubes would you ?
If the EPA kept their nose out of things we wouldn't have hotter running engines and stupid PCV's which do nothing more than contribute to maintenance costs and engine deterioration.
Stevie,you wouldnt want to go back to those road draft tubes would you ?
- Status
